New Democrat House Member Calls for Trump Impeachment

I want to state at the beginning that I will not censor so-called profanity in this post. If you find such words objectionable, then discontinue reading this and retreat to your safe zone.

Rashida Tlaib is half of the duo that became the first Muslim women to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, the other being Ilhan Omar, of whom I wrote about when some became upset when they believed the removal of the House ban on headgear would allow Omar to wear a Hijab on the House floor.

I've come upon a few comments on Facebook by some folks who've gotten the vapors over Muslims being elected to office. Ironically, these are the same folks objecting to government discriminating against Christians. If someone wants to cast their vote for a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist or worshiper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then it's none of our business.

It isn't Tlaib's religion that has her in the news today. Speaking to a crowd at an event sponsored by progressive Democrats - yes, I know I'm being redundant - Tlaib said, regarding President Trump, ".......we're gonna go in there and we're going to impeach the motherfucker."

Of course, that comment caused more Americans to get the aforementioned vapors. One isn't allowed to say the word "motherfucker" in polite society, after all.

Others were upset that the vulgar word "impeach" was also used.

Obviously, I'm not easily offended by the word "motherfucker" - I wouldn't have used it so many times in this post if I were. You know, "sticks and stone......." and all that.

I just see the absurdity of trying to impeach Trump. Sure, there are enough far-out Democrats -again I'm being redundant - in the House to impeach him, but the whole thing will come to nothing because the Republican controlled Senate will not vote to remove him from office.

Any Democrat who believes otherwise is just a stupid motherfucker.

Stupid Meme

In the past couple of weeks, I've seen an anti-muslim meme posted onto Facebook on at least two occasions. Posted as a jpg., the meme reads, as follows:

How stupid are we?
"We allow our government to flood our nation with Muslims, give them welfare for life (with multiple wives), and then tell us we must not offend them 'or we will go to prison'. Islamic immigration has destroyed every country in Europe, and it will destroy both Canada and the US.
Are we so stupid that we'll stand by and let this happen to our country?"

The first time I came upon this meme, I left a comment on the Facebook page where it appeared. I was highly critical of the meme but it was obvious that I wasn't going to change anyone's mind.

I came across the meme again yesterday, and I was tempted to leave another critical comment, when I was reminded of a quote by one of my favorite writers, Elizabeth von Arnim -

"............the less a person knows, the more certain he is that he is right, and that no weapons yet invented are of any use in a struggle with stupidity."

The person who had posted the meme was obviously a person described in the von Armin quote, and I'd be wasting my time trying to change the mind (such as it is) of that person.

However, I could not leave this unanswered. I could, at least comment on the meme in this blog.

From the content of the meme, there's no way of knowing if the original writer was American or Canadian. The posters I knew are Americans, so I will address it from the standpoint that they believe it applies to the USA.

I'll address the wording in sections.
"We allow our government to flood our nation with Muslims.......". According to the US Constitution, the government cannot exclude immigrants based on their religion. There's freedom of religion in the US and Muslims can't be prevented from immigrating.

"......give them welfare for life......". I know a few Muslims and none are on welfare.

".....(with multiple wives)...". I worked with a Muslim whose family had immigrated from the Middle East. At the time of their immigration, his father had two wives. The US government would only allow him to bring one wife.

".........and then tell us we must not offend them 'or we will go to prison'.......". This is a totally ridiculous notion. No one is in prison in the United States for offending Muslims.

As I said, I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but I feel better after putting in my 2 cent's worth.

House Rules Might Now Allow Hijab on House Floor.

Normally, I tend not to disagree with Rush Limbaugh very often, but I believe that with a recent Facebook post, he's needlessly causing a fuss over nothing.

When posting a link to his comments on Democrats' plans to change a House rule that bans the wearing of hats on the House Floor, in order to accommodate Minnesota Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar, a Muslim who wears a headscarf, he added this line above the Facebook entry :

"A 181-year-old rule in the House of Representatives says no religious head wear may be worn. She’s the one challenging that."

Naturally, thousands of comments were left on that post - most probably ridiculous and over the top. Of course, I didn't read all of the more than five thousand comments, but those I did read were highly critical of changing the 181 year old rule in order to accommodate a Muslim - separation of Church and State and all that.

If one were to take a moment to do a bit of research, it becomes pretty clear that the ban has nothing at all to do with "religious headwear". Put simply, it's a ban on hats and all head coverings while on the House floor.

I don't really see the harm in allowing female Muslim members of the House of Representatives to wear a head scarf, if they choose to wear one. That's contrary to one comment, however, which reads:

"She will brazenly wear her hijab. And NO ONE will stop her. Muslim Privilege. IT will be the DEMISE of America and Western Civilization".

There were also comments on the (current) ban on yarmulkes, like this one:

"Why do we have to change our rules/laws to accommodate when Jewish members never asked asked [sic]."

I'm no authority on Jewish law, but it is my understanding that there is considerable debate as to whether or not wearing a yarmulke at all times is required. I'm quite sure that, had a Jewish member of the House felt he was required to wear one, he would have been accommodated.

The current ban would also apply to House members wanting to wear baseball caps in support of their local team. House members from Massachusetts can't wear Red Sox caps to celebrate their team winning the World Series this year. That would probably suit the New York and Los Angeles Representatives just fine.

I'm sure the rule change will be supported by all House Democrats - there may be some grumble from a few House Republicans. The shoe would've been on the other foot, so to speak, had a newly elected House member asked to have the ban dropped in order to allow him to wear his MAGA cap.

It would then be the Democrats supporting the 181 year old tradition.

Sinead O'Connor Converts to Islam

It's been a long time since I've made any comment on the bizarre behavior of Sinead O'Connor - seven years, in fact, when she obtained her fourth divorce.

Her attempt to be ordained a Catholic priest occured in 1999, long before the creation of this blog.

Now, I've learned that O'Conner has has converted to Islam and changed her name to Shuhada' Davitt.

Far be it from me to say that Ms. O'Conner/Davitt isn't serious in her conversion. I simply wonder about her need to inform the world of the conversion.

National Catholic Reporter Should Become National Islamic Reporter

I mentioned in Friday's post that the high cost of electricity here on Negros island, and the surprisingly large amount of electricity used by my PC, has put a dent in the time I've been spending on the computer lately. That has naturally put a crimp in my blogging.

I haven't been totally absent from the Internet, however. My iPhone uses a relatively small amount of electricity, so checking my email and Facebook hasn't been a problem. I can even read my favorite blogs on the iPhone.

Earlier today, I was visiting the creativeminorityreport and going through their blog links. Unfortunately, most of the links go to blogs that haven't had an updated post in years, or in some cases to blogs that no longer exist.

One of the blog links that is still active and current is to Dymphna's Road. In a post from Saturday, Dymphna provides a link to a "distasteful article from National Catholic Reporter" entitled "The Muslim Jesus provides common ground for Christianity, Islam".

The writer of this particular article bemoans the increase of "Islamaphobia" in Trump's America. The writer tries to bring together Christians and Muslims by letting Christians know in what high regard the Quran places Jesus.

The writer mentions that the Quran refers to Jesus as "Spirit from God, "Word from/of God", "Prophet-Messenger of God," and the "Messiah" who will come back on the Day of Judgment to destroy the Antichrist. He goes on to write that "naturally there are theological differences between Muslims and Christians regarding Jesus" but fails to mention that Islam teaches that Jesus was "the precursor to Muhammad" and a prophet, not God incarnate, nor the Son of God. He also fails to mention that Islam teaches that Jesus was not crucified nor raised from the dead.

The idea that "the Muslim Jesus provides common ground for Christianity, Islam" is an insult to Christianity. The writer, obviously does not understand the teachings of Christianity.

More Curious Google Ad Placement

Two weeks ago, I wrote a post dealing with the sometimes odd Google ads that appear on this blog. I've been led to think that a good deal of the logic behind the ad placement is content related. On my PC, when I view my blog, I see quite a few ads for farm related products - with pig farming equipment coming up most frequently.

In that earlier post, I noted that the ads for farming seemed logical because many of my posts have been about my attempts at gardening and the raising of pigs. It struck me as odd, however, that along with the ads for pig farming equipment, I was seeing ads for products related to prostate problems.

Now, along with the swine related ads, I'm seeing ads for Facebook with Arabic lettering.

I have no explanation for that combination.

The Holiday Meal

Today, September 12, 2016 - the day after the fifteenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks known as "9 -11" - is also the Muslim holiday, Eid al-Adha.

Partly out of deference to it's tiny Muslim population, and partly due to the fact that Filipinos cannot resist any holiday, today is a legal holiday in Philippines. This being Eid al-Adha, I thought I'd try a recipe for pork chops which I've been meaning to try for quite some time.

A little after 6:00 this morning, I drove to the public market in Sibulan to purchase a kilo of pork chops. That kilo is shown in the photo above. The pork chops cost 190 Ph pesos for the one kilo. Converting pesos to dollars and kilos to lbs, that makes the price $1.86 per lb. I've no idea what the current price of pork chops are in the U.S.; maybe one of my friends will let me know.

Food For Thought

According scientific, astronomical calculations, a new moon appeared on Sept.1st of this year. The sighting of the new moon is important to Muslims in calculating their religious holidays. In spite of the fact that scientists tell us the date of this particular new moon was Sept.1st, in order to declare the beginning of any Islamic holy day, Saudi Arabia depends on the testimonies of people in the desert as to whether or not they have spotted the moon. This year, the moon was not visible on Sept 1st, and was not seen by the "official moon spotters" in Saudi Arabia until the next evening.

Why is this even worth mentioning?

The Eid al-Adha, Islam's holiest festival celebrated annually around the world and an official holiday in Muslim-majority countries, is determined by the sighting of this particular new moon. Because the new moon was spotted on Sept. 2nd, the Eid al-Adha will be on Sept 12 this year. Had the new moon been spotted in Saudi Arabia on the 1st - when astronomers say it actually occurred - this holy Islamic festival would have fallen on the fifteenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Muslims in the U.S. are reportedly relieved that the powers that be proclaimed Sept.12 and not Sept.11 as the start of Eid al-Adha.

Not being able to resist any holiday what-so-ever, the Philippine government has declared, Monday Sept.12 as a National Holiday.

Islamic tradition calls for the sacrifice on Eid al-Adha, of a cow, camel, goat, sheep, or ram (depending on the region) as a symbol of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son.


Perhaps it might be fitting for us to commemorate Sept.11 and 12 with bacon.

Banning Islam in America?

I don't normally use this blog to comment on Facebook memes, but I came across a jpg. on the website this morning so egregious - so anti-American that I couldn't let it slide.

The photo shows a kneeling, medieval warrior with the words "Anti-Islam. To Be Opposed To Evil is To Be Opposed To Islam! Let The Crusade Begin! Ban Islam In America!" emblazoned across it.

Has the person who created this image and the Americans sharing it actually read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

For those who have either not read the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights or maybe have forgotten what's written there, allow me to post it here.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does this need an explanation?

If one doesn't understand this, perhaps this from the Cornell University Law School will help.

"Free Exercise Clause refers to the section of the First Amendment italicized here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious '[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practise were all expressly protected' by the Free Exercise Clause.The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that 'free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.' The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects".

Shall I put this in simple English for Trump supporters?

You cannot ban any religion in the United States of America!

Look, I am not a supporter of Islam. I believe Muslims will spend Eternity in Hell. For that matter, I believe most Baptists, Methodists and other Protestants will do likewise, but I wouldn't consider a ban on those heresies either. There's only one way to salvation and that's through Jesus Christ via His one and only Church - The Catholic Church. If that hurts your feelings, I'm sure you'll want to ban my Right to Free Speech as well.

No Bathing in Burkinis

After posting an earlier piece on France banning burkinis on beaches, I came upon this cartoon on sputniknews.com.

It seems like everyone agrees with me that banning the burkini isn't the way to go. Even the Jerusalem Post says we should ban men, not burkinis.

France Bans the Burkini

In France, where liberté,égalité, fraternité is the national, tripartite motto, (as opposed to the U.S.A., where the tripartite motto is sex, drugs, rock&roll) a number of freedom loving communities have issued a ban on the burkini - a modest, full bodied swimsuit worn by some Muslim women- calling the swimming attire part of the "enslavement of women".

Mayors in some French towns considering the ban, have never actually seen a burkini. In France, apparently, a liberated woman must be immodestly, never modestly, dressed at all times.

Those supporting the ban maintain the issue is not Islamophobia, but about some folks desire to control women's bodies. Just like abortion, I guess.

In the country where I live, the women are inclined to wear more modest beachwear compared to the typical American or French woman. Although not prohibited, by any means, because of their concern for modesty, as well as skin protection, one is more likely to see a Filipina dressed in a bulky t-shirt and shorts, while swimming, rather than a skimpy bikini. If given only two choices of swim wear - a tiny, skimpy bikini or a burkini - I suspect the average Filipina will choose the more modest swimsuit.

However, if we're talking women's liberation, the Filipinos have managed to do something neither the French or Americans have done - elect a female President, twice.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Trump Wants Ban on Legal Immigration from Philippines

When I first came upon a story, linked to on Facebook, that Donald Trump had listed immigrants from Philippines as coming from one of a number of "terrorist nations that shouldn't be allowed because you can't vet them", I was a bit skeptical.

After all, we're talking about, 1) the Internet, 2) Facebook and 3) Donald Trump. I assumed that the story was just another Trumpian Internet rumor - something less than true, used to stir up anger against the Donald.

It appears that I was mistaken.

At a rally in Portland, Maine, Trump provided a lengthy explanation of why he thinks the United States needs to be skeptical of immigrants from many countries, even if they follow the legal process. Trump did indeed reference Philippines as one of these "terrorist nations".

Needless to say, Filipinos are not happy with Trump. In an opinion piece, one Philippine newspaper called Trump everything but a white man. In addition to calling Donald a jingoist, a fear monger and reckless, in a separate editorial, the paper said Trump had "orange skin and [the] ridiculous hair".

In a bill filed in the Philippine House of Representatives, one lawmaker is seeking to permanently ban Trump from entering the country.

In some ways, it's understandable that some might link Philippines with terrorism; Recently, the terror group Abu Sayyaf beheaded 2 Canadian nationals and have kidnapped several more foreigners. It's difficult, however, to stand behind Trump on this when one knows countless Filipinos who are most definitely not terrorists.

There's little to worry about in regards to Trump. I've said, on more than one occasion, that Clinton will most likely defeat Trump in the election for POTUS. I don't say this because I prefer one candidate over the other - I dislike them both - but I believe the 2016 election will come down to which one is hated less. In this case, I believe slightly fewer Americans despise Hillary than Trump. I know, having to choose between those two is like trying to decide if you'd prefer mustard or mayo on your fecal sandwich. These two are the candidates the American voters have chosen, and they're stuck with them.

French Terrorist Told Police, 'I'm delivering ice cream'.

According to mirror.co.uk, Nice terror attacker Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel told police 'I'm delivering ice cream' when questioned just hours before massacre.

Killer Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was parked up on the Promenade des Anglais for almost nine hours before his horrific attack after telling police he was 'delivering ice cream', according to reports.

Judging by photos of the truck used in the terror attack, there does not appear to have been a refrigeration unit on the truck. Just how French police expected ice to remain frozen for nine hours in a unrefrigerated truck.....in July.....is beyond me.

Look for calls from POTUS Obama to call for a ban on ice cream in the United States.

Obama Responds to Terror Attack in Nice, France

Thoughts on Eid al-Fitr and the Islamic Calendar

Today, July 06, 2016 is a holiday in Philippines. In the Islamic calendar, today is Eid al-Fitr, an important religious holiday celebrated by Muslims worldwide that marks the end of the month of Ramadan and the first day of the month of Shawwal.

Although Muslims only make up apprx. 11% of the population, the Philippines adds many Muslim holidays to the country's list of days taken off in addition to the numerous Catholic holidays and secular, national holidays.

Most non-Muslims, like myself, know next to nothing about the Islamic calendar; if we know anything at all, it's the month of Ramadan that we're most familiar with, because of the usual increase in the number of terror attacks by radical Islamic jihadists during this "holy month". What about some of these lesser known (to non -Muslims) months.

The Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar so it doesn't line up exactly with the West's Gregorian calendar. This year, Ramadan aligned, more or less, with June; Shawwal aligns, more or less, with July. The next month in the Islamic calendar is Dhu al-Qi'dah and lines up, this year, with August. According to more than one source, Dhu al-Qi'dah, also spelled Thul Qi’dah, is one of the four sacred months in Islam during which warfare is prohibited, hence the name "Master of Truce".

Let me say that again - Dhu al-Qi'dah is a holy month during which war is banned. People are allowed to defend themselves if attacked.

Let's remember this come this August. Islamic jihadists are all for increasing terror during Ramadan, because they believe Islam calls for that. Will there be a truce regarding terrorist attacks during Dhu al-Qi'dah by these same jihadists?

London’s Muslim Mayor Bans Sexy Women In Advertisements

From the Daily Caller:
London’s Muslim Mayor Bans Sexy Women In Advertisements -

"Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, announced Monday that 'body shaming' advertisements will no longer be allowed in London’s public transport".

One wonders if the motive behind this ban is "feminism" or Islam.

I suppose he's just one step away from requiring women to dress like his wife.

Politicians' Predictable Responses to Orlando Massacre

An American-born man, who had pledged allegiance to ISIS, kills at least 50 people and sends 53 more to the hospital, most in critical condition, early Sunday at a gay nightclub in Orlando and the political class gives predictable responses.

Hillary Clinton states the obvious by calling the attack an act of "terror" and "hate". In a statement, Clinton mentions that the gunman attacked an LGBT nightclub during Pride Month. She failed, however to mention that the gunman was Muslim and the attack occurred during Ramadan.

No one should be surprised that Clinton called for stronger measures to restrict access to guns.

Donald Trump does a victory lap by saying the massacre shows he is right about terrorism.

Associated Press summed it up nicely by reporting that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ".....infused their sympathy with statements that favor their presidential aspirations, and the presidential race rolled on".

London's New Mayor

Drudge Report announced the election of London's first Muslim mayor by refering to Sadiq Khan as 'Khan of Londonistan'.

It's difficult for me to say whether, or not, Westerners should be concerned over Khan's election. Just how 'Muslim' is Sadiq Khan?

He does not drink alcohol; he was recently sworn in to the Queen's advisory commitee -Privy Council- using a copy of the Quran, rather than a Bible. However, as a MP, he voted for gay marriage in 2013. Not exactly a Muslim value. With that vote, I suspect he's like nearly every other politician. He uses religion to suit his own agenda.

In an opinion piece for CNN one writer views Khan's election - as well as former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper defeat by Justin Trudeau - as bad news for Donald Trump. So called, Islamophobic campaigns just aren't the thing to do this season.

I'm not at all sure how Trump's approach to Islam will affect his chances to become POTUS. I believe he actually could shot someone on 5th Avenue, and still not lose support from the Trumpetts.

Is Islamaphobia a Form of Racism? Part Two.

Anyone who has followed this blog knows that I am no supporter of Donald Trump. If you doubt that, click on the category labeled "Trump" and read my posts for yourself.

I'd like to believe that I'm objective; I think that I'm fair in what I write and say. Fairness and objectivity are two reasons why I have to call out a recent opinion piece by Khaled A Beydoun which was published on the Al Jazeera website. Beydoun is another Muslim writer who would have us believe that "Islamaphobia" is a form of racism. Admittedly, Beydoun defines Islamophobia as "the suspicion and fear of Islam and its 1.7 billion adherents", but he seems to be confused on the definition of "racism".

Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion and a belief-system whose believers come from a variety of races and ethnic backgrounds. Not all Muslims are Arab. You could, logically argue that Islamophobia is a form of bigotry, but I'm not at all certain that that description fits Trump.

I would modify Beydoun's definition of the word Islamophobia as "an unreasonable suspicion and fear of Islam". So, we'd have to ask if Trump's fear of Islam is unreasonable?

While calling for a ban (temporary or otherwise) of all Muslim immigration into the United States might be extreme, there are elements in Islam which do pose a threat to Western civilization and picking out which Muslims are extreme, and which are not, is not an easy task.

Beydoun claims that the "word brand Trump" is becoming synonymous with the expansion of racism and the incitement of Islamophobic violence. That may be true among the political Left where the word racism is thrown about carelessly, but I've seen little evidence of Islamophobic violence in the United States.

To my knowledge, no American is calling for the beheading of Muslims.

Is Islamaphobia a Form of Racism?

I have to say, right off the bat, that I agree somewhat, with Hamid Dabashi in his opinion piece at aljazeera.com - Donald Trump did "hit a new low by calling for a 'total and complete' ban on Muslims entering the United States". While the U.S. should be very careful who is allowed to enter the country, banning all Muslims isn't the way to go.

I would, however, ask Dabashi to pay closer attention to his language.

Dabashi, and others like him, continue to call anti-Muslim views and opinions "racist". The last I checked, Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion - an ideology. So called "Islamophobia" may or may not be bigoted but calling it racist gets us nowhere.

Words matter. When you call someone or some idea racist, you immediately shut down all conversation. We're not allowed to discuss Trump's idea on banning Muslims because of the racist call.

The same can be said about a charge by Yassin Musharbash in the guardian. Yassin Musharbash claims "Islamophobia is racism, pure and simple".

Call anti-Muslim comments and actions "bigoted" or "prejudice", if that's your opinion, but I cannot say it often enough - Muslims are not a separate race. There are Muslims of every race and language group.

A web search of "Is Islamaphobia racist?" brought me to debate.org where 63% of those responding to that question agree with me. Reading the arguments of many making up the 38% who believe Islamaphobia is a form of racism, it's obvious that they do not understand the meaning of the word.

In the U.S., quite a few Progressives who might be inclined to call Islamaphobia racist have no qualms about being a rabid anti-Catholic. Shall we likewise call Catholiphobia a form of racism?